Marx believed that the entire world should be the only state. Stateless was in reference to individual nation states. Or so I've always been taught.

You were taught wrong. Marx's desired final situation for the world was one where there was no government because there was no exploitation by capital.

It's worth noting that he describes capital in the same way that a lot of the Anarcho-Libertarians on this board describe government.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Fatbert:

Originally Posted By TheOTHERmaninblack:

Originally Posted By nukldragr:I believe they can. I think I already stated I don't trust Government, My Command team, Civilians, Random folks on the Internet preaching anarchy and "take your guns to the steps of the white house." I look at it all with a Jaundiced eye. You folks with the Somali flags, you are aligning with anarchists in Somalia.... Murdering scum. Or with the folks who flew the Bonnie Blue Flag, folks willing to kill their own country men so they could own other people a little longer. I look real hard at that and really wonder about motivations. In short I've spent my life defending......... What? At best nothing. I've safe guarded you civilians right to piss everything away. Which you have almost completed your goals of enthusiastically pissing everything away.
So go strap on your Guy Fawkes mask and throw a chair through a Whole Foods window.

Originally Posted By Fatbert:Bonnie Blue FlagMarx believed that a stateless society was necessary for human freedom too.

Marx believed that the entire world should be the only state. Stateless was in reference to individual nation states. Or so I've always been taught.

You were taught wrong. Marx's desired final situation for the world was one where there was no government because there was no exploitation by capital.

It's worth noting that he describes capital in the same way that a lot of the Anarcho-Libertarians on this board describe government.

marx may have written about a post revolutionary stateless society. But getting there, per his writing, is dependent on empowering a violent revolutionary government to impose the order involuntarily. Of course the dirty little secret of communists is that you never move into the final phase, you never stop securing the revolution from foreigners and counter revolutionaries.

Besides being authoritarian, communisim is by it very nature collectivist, as the state or whatever is more important than the individual and it is considered acceptible to sacrifice the individual for the greater good, whether he wants to be sacrificed or not. Anarchism is about the farthest thing possible from communism, both in terms of its value of the individual (the smallest minority) and its permissiveness of the use of force.

Anarchism is fundamentally a moral belief that aggression is wrong. Its commandments are:
-don't steal people's stuff (or defraud them)
-don't assault people
-if people are assaulting you or yours, or stealing from you you may use force.

These are the basic rules of society, what every kindergartener learns and what we all (should) practice in our private and professional lives. But near universal statist indoctrination adds the following appendix:
-Thou shalt NEVER resist the government or its enforcers NO MATTER WHAT they do to you or anyone else.

Concepts such as Divine right, social contract, democracy etc are all mental contortiouns made up to resolve the cognative dissonance created by that glaring exception to what is supposed to me a universal moral rule, the non-aggression priciple.

This chick is not breaking any fresh ground. It's nice to see someone discovering traditional American values and I give her points for not being a complete airhead, but after I got the gist and the novelty of a nice rack wore off, I was done.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

...then the source of a person's checks is not really an accurate litmus test for their beliefs.

Most .mil could be called conservative, the ones with a functioning brain anyways. It's a false argument to suggest that everyone working for Uncle Sam is a socialist or a statist, as you seem to be implying.

This chick is not breaking any fresh ground. It's nice to see someone discovering traditional American values and I give her points for not being a complete airhead, but after I got the gist and the novelty of a nice rack wore off, I was done.

She's no Allan West or Thomas Sowell, but she's got the basics figured out.

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it.

You still don't seem to see a difference between .mil employees and the administrative bodies of government.

Is there waste in both? Absolutely. But from which could more fat be trimmed?

Again, I don't believe in absolutes.

The military is an authoritarian, socialist system, which strictly regulates and controls individual behavior, and has a well defined authoritarian hierarchical command structure. There are a few individuals who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in this system, and like it, that they imagine it's a good way to organize society in general. Which of course it's not. Hopefully, most don't feel this way, but more then a few do.

What we have today is a malignancy. Debating on which part of this malignancy needs to be sectioned more, seems somewhat pointless to me.

Well it's not pointless. And to call the military "socialist" makes me not even want to address that any further.

What are we talking about again?

Don't be upset. Most who've served in the military, and also understand what the term socialism really means would agree.

In the military the government owns and controls everything, it distributes everything, it provides for all services and support, from food distribution to building maintenance, housing, medical, training and education. I can think of no other organization that is more socialist then the military.

Most people misuse the term socialism. I wasn't using the term to insult the military. In fact, I'm not suggesting that the military could be run any other way, just stating a fact.

The military is an authoritarian, socialist system, which strictly regulates and controls individual behavior, and has a well defined authoritarian hierarchical command structure and culture. There are a few individuals who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in this system, and like it, that they imagine it's a good way to organize society in general. Which of course it's not. Hopefully, most don't feel this way, but more then a few do.

What we have today is a malignancy. Debating on which part of this malignancy needs to be sectioned more, seems somewhat pointless to me.

And it's the hierarchical command structure of the military that makes it effective.

Which brings me back to why I have so little faith in the Anarcho-Libertarian conception of people's war as a means to increase freedom.

marx may have written about a post revolutionary stateless society. But getting there, per his writing, is dependent on empowering a violent revolutionary government to impose the order involuntarily. Of course the dirty little secret of communists is that you never move into the final phase, you never stop securing the revolution from foreigners and counter revolutionaries.

Besides being authoritarian, communisim is by it very nature collectivist, as the state or whatever is more important than the individual and it is considered acceptible to sacrifice the individual for the greater good, whether he wants to be sacrificed or not. Anarchism is about the farthest thing possible from communism, both in terms of its value of the individual (the smallest minority) and its permissiveness of the use of force.

Anarchism is fundamentally a moral belief that aggression is wrong. Its commandments are:
-don't steal people's stuff (or defraud them)
-don't assault people
-if people are assaulting you or yours, or stealing from you you may use force.

These are the basic rules of society, what every kindergartener learns and what we all (should) practice in our private and professional lives. But near universal statist indoctrination adds the following appendix:
-Thou shalt NEVER resist the government or its enforcers NO MATTER WHAT they do to you or anyone else.

Concepts such as Divine right, social contract, democracy etc are all mental contortiouns made up to resolve the cognative dissonance created by that glaring exception to what is supposed to me a universal moral rule.

View Quote

So what would this stateless society look like?

And once you anarchists have torn down the government, how do you keep someone from building it up again? How do you keep those with guile and cunning from picking up all of the Rothbard-toting non-aggression principled enlightened ones and shoving them on a train to Siberia?

And once you anarchists have torn down the government, how do you keep someone from building it up again? How do you keep those with guile and cunning from picking up all of the Rothbard-toting non-aggression principled enlightened ones and shoving them on a train to Siberia?

marx may have written about a post revolutionary stateless society. But getting there, per his writing, is dependent on empowering a violent revolutionary government to impose the order involuntarily. Of course the dirty little secret of communists is that you never move into the final phase, you never stop securing the revolution from foreigners and counter revolutionaries.

Besides being authoritarian, communisim is by it very nature collectivist, as the state or whatever is more important than the individual and it is considered acceptible to sacrifice the individual for the greater good, whether he wants to be sacrificed or not. Anarchism is about the farthest thing possible from communism, both in terms of its value of the individual (the smallest minority) and its permissiveness of the use of force.

Anarchism is fundamentally a moral belief that aggression is wrong. Its commandments are:
-don't steal people's stuff (or defraud them)
-don't assault people
-if people are assaulting you or yours, or stealing from you you may use force.

These are the basic rules of society, what every kindergartener learns and what we all (should) practice in our private and professional lives. But near universal statist indoctrination adds the following appendix:
-Thou shalt NEVER resist the government or its enforcers NO MATTER WHAT they do to you or anyone else.

Concepts such as Divine right, social contract, democracy etc are all mental contortiouns made up to resolve the cognative dissonance created by that glaring exception to what is supposed to me a universal moral rule.

So what would this stateless society look like?

And once you anarchists have torn down the government, how do you keep someone from building it up again? How do you keep those with guile and cunning from picking up all of the Rothbard-toting non-aggression principled enlightened ones and shoving them on a train to Siberia?

The military is an authoritarian, socialist system, which strictly regulates and controls individual behavior, and has a well defined authoritarian hierarchical command structure and culture. There are a few individuals who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in this system, and like it, that they imagine it's a good way to organize society in general. Which of course it's not. Hopefully, most don't feel this way, but more then a few do.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By Fatbert:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Again, I don't believe in absolutes.

The military is an authoritarian, socialist system, which strictly regulates and controls individual behavior, and has a well defined authoritarian hierarchical command structure and culture. There are a few individuals who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in this system, and like it, that they imagine it's a good way to organize society in general. Which of course it's not. Hopefully, most don't feel this way, but more then a few do.

What we have today is a malignancy. Debating on which part of this malignancy needs to be sectioned more, seems somewhat pointless to me.

And it's the hierarchical command structure of the military that makes it effective.

Which brings me back to why I have so little faith in the Anarcho-Libertarian conception of people's war as a means to increase freedom.

I would not argue with that statement in the least.

So could the people effectively resist an oppressive government with force if they don't organize themselves into a military hierarchy?

And what is it that functionally distinguishes this hierarchy from a state apparatus?

The military is an authoritarian, socialist system, which strictly regulates and controls individual behavior, and has a well defined authoritarian hierarchical command structure. There are a few individuals who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in this system, and like it, that they imagine it's a good way to organize society in general. Which of course it's not. Hopefully, most don't feel this way, but more then a few do.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Again, I don't believe in absolutes.

The military is an authoritarian, socialist system, which strictly regulates and controls individual behavior, and has a well defined authoritarian hierarchical command structure. There are a few individuals who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in this system, and like it, that they imagine it's a good way to organize society in general. Which of course it's not. Hopefully, most don't feel this way, but more then a few do.

What we have today is a malignancy. Debating on which part of this malignancy needs to be sectioned more, seems somewhat pointless to me.

Well it's not pointless. And to call the military "socialist" makes me not even want to address that any further.

What are we talking about again?

Don't be upset. Most who've served in the military, and also understand what the term socialism really means would agree.

In the military the government owns and controls everything, it distributes everything, it provides for all services and support, from food distribution to building maintenance, housing, medical, training and education. I can think of no other organization that is more socialist then the military.

I'm not suggesting that the military could be run any other way, just stating a fact. Most people misuse the term socialism.

You deleted the majority of my post. You're obviously not trying to win anybody over here.

And as a branch of the government it's ridiculous to call the military "socialist".

Every branch of the government is "socialist" to some degree, that's what qualifies it as public sector.

The military is an authoritarian, socialist system, which strictly regulates and controls individual behavior, and has a well defined authoritarian hierarchical command structure and culture. There are a few individuals who have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in this system, and like it, that they imagine it's a good way to organize society in general. Which of course it's not. Hopefully, most don't feel this way, but more then a few do.

What we have today is a malignancy. Debating on which part of this malignancy needs to be sectioned more, seems somewhat pointless to me.

And it's the hierarchical command structure of the military that makes it effective.

Which brings me back to why I have so little faith in the Anarcho-Libertarian conception of people's war as a means to increase freedom.

I would not argue with that statement in the least.

So could the people effectively resist an oppressive government with force if they don't organize themselves into a military hierarchy?

And what is it that functionally distinguishes this hierarchy from a state apparatus?

Organization and freedom are not mutually exclusive, so of course any large scale armed resistance needs to be organized.

Tell me, where in my comment did I write anything close to what you are implying I wrote?

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many (many... as in not all) who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it.

And you derive absolutely no benefits from that government taking money from people, right?

The military is a total waste of tax payer dollars, and the Founders were morons for putting national defense as a responsibility of the government in the constitution. That is what you are saying, yes?

All people in the military have no skills outside of the mil or gov. It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of the mil is non-combat arms and that the training people get in the mil often helps them attain civilian employment outside of the mil and gov (especially non-combat arms related jobs..).

BRAVO!

You've managed both an appeal to emotion AND straw man argument in the same comment!

Tell me, where in my comment did I write anything close to what you are implying I wrote?

Yes, you said many. Do you know what the definition of many is. Many means:

Many
“Many” is defined as “a large number.” But, what does “a large number” actually mean? In the case of a nine-person party, “many” might mean five, six, seven, or eight. However, in the case of 20,000 concertgoers, many would probably mean over 7,000 or 8,000—the exact number is indistinct. So, again, the meaning of this term is somewhat dependent on overall group size.

So, we've had approximately 2 million + service members rotate through Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years. Exactly how many (ha!) do you suspect are worthless government socialists and need to suck off the government tit, and have no marketable skills? 1.1 million. 700,000? Give me a number?

Your use of the word many creates the tone that you think it is relatively rare that anyone in the military ever serves a purpose outside of government, or that they have any skills at all. Don't try to weasel out of your words now. Tell us how you really feel.

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -- Thucydides

marx may have written about a post revolutionary stateless society. But getting there, per his writing, is dependent on empowering a violent revolutionary government to impose the order involuntarily. Of course the dirty little secret of communists is that you never move into the final phase, you never stop securing the revolution from foreigners and counter revolutionaries.

Besides being authoritarian, communisim is by it very nature collectivist, as the state or whatever is more important than the individual and it is considered acceptible to sacrifice the individual for the greater good, whether he wants to be sacrificed or not. Anarchism is about the farthest thing possible from communism, both in terms of its value of the individual (the smallest minority) and its permissiveness of the use of force.

Anarchism is fundamentally a moral belief that aggression is wrong. Its commandments are:
-don't steal people's stuff (or defraud them)
-don't assault people
-if people are assaulting you or yours, or stealing from you you may use force.

These are the basic rules of society, what every kindergartener learns and what we all (should) practice in our private and professional lives. But near universal statist indoctrination adds the following appendix:
-Thou shalt NEVER resist the government or its enforcers NO MATTER WHAT they do to you or anyone else.

Concepts such as Divine right, social contract, democracy etc are all mental contortiouns made up to resolve the cognative dissonance created by that glaring exception to what is supposed to me a universal moral rule.

So what would this stateless society look like?

And once you anarchists have torn down the government, how do you keep someone from building it up again? How do you keep those with guile and cunning from picking up all of the Rothbard-toting non-aggression principled enlightened ones and shoving them on a train to Siberia?

Nobody said anything about messiahs. The term was dream girl, as in, "the girl you dream about finding." The girl who ain't bad to look at and shares your world view.

Personally, I listen/watch anybody, young, old, pretty, ugly, who promotes Constitutional principles. Do I think any of them are messiahs? No, why should I? Do we even need a messiah? Doubt it.

What we need is to build upon the small portion of the population that reveres these principles until we once again achieve critical mass to actually affect what's going on. At the moment, we're in that unenviable position the founders were in pre-revolution. We are not being represented, and we currently have no means to become so.

What we need is to figure out how to cooperate with each other. The religious conservatives don't like the libertarians, the libertarians don't like the religious conservatives, the fiscals don't like the morals, etc, etc, etc. So we end up staying home in droves and losing by default.

Libs got Ron Paul BECAUSE they think he's the messiah. Many of us don't buy into that. Although, he seems to have raised a good kid, whom I'd vote for.

Morals get beat down by the country club Repubs to the point that they've given up and are just waiting for bullets to fly on the assumption that they'll NEVER again get a candidate that they can stand behind, not from the Repubs, and CERTAINLY not from the Libertarians! Libertarians stay home because they can't get an anarcho/libertarian candidate that doesn't make the whole rest of the populace erupt in spontaneous WTF.

The problem is that the country is too fucking BIG to be ruled over by a single, seamless entity. Even back in the day. That's what being a republic is all about. Smaller, more manageable sections, aligning behind a larger, common authority WHEN NECESSARY. We lost that a hundred years or so ago, when the states went from being sovereign to being vassals of the State.

Here, I'm going to maybe confuse some people who've been following my posts in this thread. Anarchy won't work. Never has, never will. History's cycles show that, time and time again, in each new area of habitation, folks move in, come together to establish basic rules for living together, and then somebody (or group of somebodies) invariably gather more power than they need and take the fuck over. Rinse and repeat.

The sad fact is that anarchy, like communism, requires a populace that just doesn't exist on the face of the earth. Not everybody (or even most people) want to be self-governing-- that shit's hard! Not everybody is content to mind their own fucking business. Not everybody is content to earn their own shit and leave everybody else's shit alone. Not everybody is content not to pound their chests and order other people around.

The founders knew all of this. It's why they said over and over again, that this type of government required a moral people to achieve and preserve. The truly ludicrous fact is that anarchy is much the same, and yet, the anarchy proposed by some groups (I'm looking at YOU, you Guy Fawkes motherfuckers!) eschews morals as the relics of old Bible-thumping rednecks. No, I'm not saying that you have to be a Christian Bible reader to be moral, but the Judeo-Christian ethic has shown to be much more amenable to the positive lifestyle we're looking for than many others.

None of this has to do with this chick being any greater than anybody else who promotes Constitutional values or whether she's hotter than Tuscaloosa on a Saturday night in July (which she isn't. April or May, maybe), but it does seem to bear on what this discussion has devolved into.

The idea that the people should take up arms against an oppressive government.

My question is who leads them and who stops the person leading them from turning them into something akin to the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Fatbert:

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:

Originally Posted By Fatbert:

Anarcho-Libertarian conception of people's war

what in the holy fuck are you talking about?

The idea that the people should take up arms against an oppressive government.

My question is who leads them and who stops the person leading them from turning them into something akin to the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution.

i think i said it already a few times in this thread. I am well aware of the contradiction of a forcible anarchist revolution.

There is no revolution by an large organized force.

There is no abrupt rising up and tearing down etc. It is a gradual organic process of moral reformation whereby government is repudiated as immoral by more and more till it shrink and then its vestiges become voluntary (and not government as we would define today). Till people stop tolerating enforcement action till they realize that .gov can't rule us if we all agree to tell it to fuck off and kill JBTs that get sent out, and refuse to convict those that killed them (if they survived) and shame the JBTs w/ outright social ostracism till they are all pariahs and have no prospects for reproduction etc.

How it would go down in detail, and what it wold look like exactly I don't know, anymore than an abolitionist could explain how the cotton would get picked or an anit-feudalist could explain how food would get produced in their time. If you really want to know some ideas of how it might be, read Practical Anarchy. Free on freedomainradio.net.

Yes, you said many. Do you know what the definition of many is. Many means: <snip>

So, we've had approximately 2 million + service members rotate through Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years. Exactly how many (ha!) do you suspect are worthless government socialists and need to suck off the government tit, and have no marketable skills? 1.1 million. 700,000? Give me a number?

Your use of the word many creates the tone that you think it is relatively rare that anyone in the military ever serves a purpose outside of government, or that they have any skills at all. Don't try to weasel out of your words now. Tell us how you really feel.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many (many... as in not all) who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it.

And you derive absolutely no benefits from that government taking money from people, right?

The military is a total waste of tax payer dollars, and the Founders were morons for putting national defense as a responsibility of the government in the constitution. That is what you are saying, yes?

All people in the military have no skills outside of the mil or gov. It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of the mil is non-combat arms and that the training people get in the mil often helps them attain civilian employment outside of the mil and gov (especially non-combat arms related jobs..).

BRAVO!

You've managed both an appeal to emotion AND straw man argument in the same comment!

Tell me, where in my comment did I write anything close to what you are implying I wrote?

Yes, you said many. Do you know what the definition of many is. Many means: <snip>

So, we've had approximately 2 million + service members rotate through Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years. Exactly how many (ha!) do you suspect are worthless government socialists and need to suck off the government tit, and have no marketable skills? 1.1 million. 700,000? Give me a number?

Your use of the word many creates the tone that you think it is relatively rare that anyone in the military ever serves a purpose outside of government, or that they have any skills at all. Don't try to weasel out of your words now. Tell us how you really feel.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

marx may have written about a post revolutionary stateless society. But getting there, per his writing, is dependent on empowering a violent revolutionary government to impose the order involuntarily. Of course the dirty little secret of communists is that you never move into the final phase, you never stop securing the revolution from foreigners and counter revolutionaries.

Besides being authoritarian, communisim is by it very nature collectivist, as the state or whatever is more important than the individual and it is considered acceptible to sacrifice the individual for the greater good, whether he wants to be sacrificed or not. Anarchism is about the farthest thing possible from communism, both in terms of its value of the individual (the smallest minority) and its permissiveness of the use of force.

Anarchism is fundamentally a moral belief that aggression is wrong. Its commandments are:
-don't steal people's stuff (or defraud them)
-don't assault people
-if people are assaulting you or yours, or stealing from you you may use force.

These are the basic rules of society, what every kindergartener learns and what we all (should) practice in our private and professional lives. But near universal statist indoctrination adds the following appendix:
-Thou shalt NEVER resist the government or its enforcers NO MATTER WHAT they do to you or anyone else.

Concepts such as Divine right, social contract, democracy etc are all mental contortiouns made up to resolve the cognative dissonance created by that glaring exception to what is supposed to me a universal moral rule.

So what would this stateless society look like?

And once you anarchists have torn down the government, how do you keep someone from building it up again? How do you keep those with guile and cunning from picking up all of the Rothbard-toting non-aggression principled enlightened ones and shoving them on a train to Siberia?

I'm thinking that the theory (practic, theory, etc...) is that, once smashed down and scattered, and in a nation "governed" by an equitable, liberated population, the very prohibition against non-aggression will prevent any such shit to achieve critical mass before the bad actors are dealt with. Won't work, of course, but that's the theory.

On a completely different note, I'm seeing a whole lot of "either-or" in this thread. Complete Anarchy or absolute Socialism, pick one! I don't think that any truly reasonable person accepts those as the only two choices. I'm not even hearing that from Josie's videos. The idea is to have basic rules, but no more than are necessary. The big argument comes from the definition of "necessary". And that is an age-old argument that never has and never will be settled. What is necessary isn't a universal. And there's the rub, and why the federalist/statists are such harmful fuckers. The larger the group you treat in a "least common denominator" fashion, the more inequitable it becomes. Like making sixty year old widowers purchase abortion insurance because certain twenty-something females feel entitled to it (and deem it necessary).

Anarchy/liberty----------------I--------------------------------------Socialism/communism/fascism/statism. It's a sliding scale and the goal is to be as far to the left (in this case of this graph, dear God, not in the common tense!!!) as possible without chaos breaking out.

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

Please, by all means, share with us your true feelings.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many (many... as in not all) who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it.

And you derive absolutely no benefits from that government taking money from people, right?

The military is a total waste of tax payer dollars, and the Founders were morons for putting national defense as a responsibility of the government in the constitution. That is what you are saying, yes?

All people in the military have no skills outside of the mil or gov. It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of the mil is non-combat arms and that the training people get in the mil often helps them attain civilian employment outside of the mil and gov (especially non-combat arms related jobs..).

BRAVO!

You've managed both an appeal to emotion AND straw man argument in the same comment!

Tell me, where in my comment did I write anything close to what you are implying I wrote?

Yes, you said many. Do you know what the definition of many is. Many means: <snip>

So, we've had approximately 2 million + service members rotate through Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years. Exactly how many (ha!) do you suspect are worthless government socialists and need to suck off the government tit, and have no marketable skills? 1.1 million. 700,000? Give me a number?

Your use of the word many creates the tone that you think it is relatively rare that anyone in the military ever serves a purpose outside of government, or that they have any skills at all. Don't try to weasel out of your words now. Tell us how you really feel.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

Please, by all means, share with us your true feelings.

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -- Thucydides

i think i said it already a few times in this thread. I am well aware of the contradiction of a forcible anarchist revolution.

There is no revolution by an large organized force.

There is no abrupt rising up and tearing down etc. It is a gradual organic process of moral reformation whereby government is repudiated as immoral by more and more till it shrink and then its vestiges become voluntary (and not government as we would define today). Till people stop tolerating enforcement action till they realize that .gov can't rule us if we all agree to tell it to fuck off and kill JBTs that get sent out, and refuse to convict those that killed them (if they survived) and shame the JBTs w/ outright social ostracism till they are all pariahs and have no prospects for reproduction etc.

How it would go down in detail, and what it wold look like exactly I don't know, anymore than an abolitionist could explain how the cotton would get picked or an anit-feudalist could explain how food would get produced in their time. If you really want to know some ideas of how it might be, read Practical Anarchy. Free on freedomainradio.net.

View Quote

It would look like most of my life. Or at least the best parts. I can honestly say I rarely interact with government. Quite frankly I try to avoid it like I try to avoid getting an itchy rash, or interacting with a rabid dog.

If people are honest with themselves, really honest, the parts of their life lived in total anarchy are the only parts worth living. I interact with my family, friends, business associates, neighbors, and people in my community without rulers, I typically try to conduct most business transactions without rulers.

Paying taxes, standing in line at the DMV, dealing with bureaucrats, government inspectors, enforcers, and courts are among some of the most unpleasurable interactions I can imagine. I can't think of one single government interaction I look forward to. I don't think I'm alone feeling this way.

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

Please, by all means, share with us your true feelings.

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

Not to mention his coming to the aid of someone arguing with a .mil member with this little gem:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

You're wasting your time arguing with some of those who depend on government for financial support. You might as well argue with welfare recipients about the justification for supplemental government income, earned income tax credits, and food stamps.

It is crystal clear who here feels they are dependent on government, and who doesn't.

You're wasting your time arguing with some of those who depend on government for financial support. You might as well argue with welfare recipients about the justification for supplemental government income, earned income tax credits, and food stamps.

It is crystal clear who here feels they are dependent on government, and who doesn't.

Good catch.

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -- Thucydides

It would look like most of my life. Or at least the best parts. I can honestly say I rarely interact with government. Quite frankly I try to avoid it like I try to avoid getting an itchy rash, or interacting with a rabid dog.

If people are honest with themselves, really honest, the parts of their life lived in total anarchy are the only parts worth living. I interact with my family, friends, business associates, neighbors, and people in my community without rulers, I typically try to conduct most business transactions without rulers.

Paying taxes, standing in line at the DMV, dealing with bureaucrats, government inspectors, enforcers, and courts are among some of the most unpleasurable interactions I can imagine. I can't think of one single government interaction I look forward to. I don't think I'm alone feeling this way.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:

i think i said it already a few times in this thread. I am well aware of the contradiction of a forcible anarchist revolution.

There is no revolution by an large organized force.

There is no abrupt rising up and tearing down etc. It is a gradual organic process of moral reformation whereby government is repudiated as immoral by more and more till it shrink and then its vestiges become voluntary (and not government as we would define today). Till people stop tolerating enforcement action till they realize that .gov can't rule us if we all agree to tell it to fuck off and kill JBTs that get sent out, and refuse to convict those that killed them (if they survived) and shame the JBTs w/ outright social ostracism till they are all pariahs and have no prospects for reproduction etc.

How it would go down in detail, and what it wold look like exactly I don't know, anymore than an abolitionist could explain how the cotton would get picked or an anit-feudalist could explain how food would get produced in their time. If you really want to know some ideas of how it might be, read Practical Anarchy. Free on freedomainradio.net.

It would look like most of my life. Or at least the best parts. I can honestly say I rarely interact with government. Quite frankly I try to avoid it like I try to avoid getting an itchy rash, or interacting with a rabid dog.

If people are honest with themselves, really honest, the parts of their life lived in total anarchy are the only parts worth living. I interact with my family, friends, business associates, neighbors, and people in my community without rulers, I typically try to conduct most business transactions without rulers.

Paying taxes, standing in line at the DMV, dealing with bureaucrats, government inspectors, enforcers, and courts are among some of the most unpleasurable interactions I can imagine. I can't think of one single government interaction I look forward to. I don't think I'm alone feeling this way.

Oh admit it. Wo the leviathan leering at you, you would turn into a raving cannible child rapist. Or I would, and whos gonna protect you from me bro? (nevermind who is gonna protect you from .gov now).

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

Please, by all means, share with us your true feelings.

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

You really need to reread the thread. You're getting things out of order, combining and confusing different discussions. But back to THIS discussion.

In this discussion I did not mention the military, because I wasn't talking about the military. For reference here's the comment.

"Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it."

Oh, and there doesnt need to be an anarchist mil force really. Is most all thhe people decided to just blow off .gov, and to kill jbts when they came calling, thed run out of jbts real quick., the ruling oligarchy and their enforcers are always, by definition a mminority. A parasite cannot be larger than its host.

But the people,will not revolt till they know they can. And they wont know they can till they do.

But yes people, most of our individual lives and most of our society is in fact anarchistic.

You really need to reread the thread. You're getting things out of order, combining and confusing different discussions. But back to THIS discussion.

In this discussion I did not mention the military, because I wasn't talking about the military. For reference here's the comment.

"Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it."

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

Please, by all means, share with us your true feelings.

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

You really need to reread the thread. You're getting things out of order, combining and confusing different discussions. But back to THIS discussion.

In this discussion I did not mention the military, because I wasn't talking about the military. For reference here's the comment.

"Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it."

No, now you're just shirking responsibility for what you said, by trying to assert you never said it. You're full of shit. Everyone can go back and read what you said. You clearly included the Mil in your attack on the government, and now you're pretending you never did so. Why? Are you now ashamed that you have insulted the very people that ensure you have the freedom to think as you do?

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -- Thucydides

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:
Oh, and there doesnt need to be an anarchist mil force really. Is most all thhe people decided to just blow of .gov, and to kill jbts when they came calling, thed run out of jbts real quick., the ruling oligarchy and their enforcers are always, by definition a mminority. A parasite cannot be larger than its host.

But the people,will not revolt till they know they can. And they wont know they can till they do.

But yes people, most of our individual lives and most of our society is in fact anarchistic.

Gov violence does NOT equal order.

View Quote

This conjunction "if" was created by Satan and designed for the unintelligent masses.

And if you're operating off the premise that most of society is anarchistic, be happy your premise isn't a train and reality isn't a cliff.

also Fat Albert please understand the distinction between the non-aggression principal and pacifism.

furthermore I would argue that if people make their intentions clear to assault you if you do not start to give them extra payments or whatever that it is quite justified to kill them either on the spot or at the time of your choosing. hey give in town could all agree to do this if some outfit tries to move in on them, probably the way the Sic, ilian killed the French occupiers.

again I highly recommend that you people go and watch the video that I link on page 3i believe below the picture of that blonde with the big tits

No, now you're just shirking responsibility for what you said, by trying to assert you never said it. You're full of shit. Everyone can go back and read what you said. You clearly included the Mil in your attack on the government, and now you're pretending you never did so. Why? Are you now ashamed that you have insulted the very people that ensure you have the freedom to think as you do?

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By Qweevox:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

Please, by all means, share with us your true feelings.

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

You really need to reread the thread. You're getting things out of order, combining and confusing different discussions. But back to THIS discussion.

In this discussion I did not mention the military, because I wasn't talking about the military. For reference here's the comment.

"Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it."

No, now you're just shirking responsibility for what you said, by trying to assert you never said it. You're full of shit. Everyone can go back and read what you said. You clearly included the Mil in your attack on the government, and now you're pretending you never did so. Why? Are you now ashamed that you have insulted the very people that ensure you have the freedom to think as you do?

This conjunction "if" was created by Satan and designed for the unintelligent masses.

And if you're operating off the premise that most of society is anarchistic, be happy your premise isn't a train and reality isn't a cliff.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:Oh, and there doesnt need to be an anarchist mil force really. Is most all thhe people decided to just blow of .gov, and to kill jbts when they came calling, thed run out of jbts real quick., the ruling oligarchy and their enforcers are always, by definition a mminority. A parasite cannot be larger than its host.

But the people,will not revolt till they know they can. And they wont know they can till they do.

But yes people, most of our individual lives and most of our society is in fact anarchistic.

Gov violence does NOT equal order.

This conjunction "if" was created by Satan and designed for the unintelligent masses.

And if you're operating off the premise that most of society is anarchistic, be happy your premise isn't a train and reality isn't a cliff.

by any measure most of our civilization is anarchistic. most people spend most of their time engaged in professional and personal relationships that are entirely voluntary.. most wealthy is created and controlled by the so-called private sector..

Not once in my comment did I suggest that I was talking about the military. In fact, I didn't even mention the military. (go ahead reread my comment) But for some reason YOU have decided that it's applicable to only the military.

Please, by all means, share with us your true feelings.

You specifically stated that the military was a socialist organization of the government, correct? Yes, you did.

You then said in response to DuratotheMax, the following regarding the military:

"While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check."

This comment was in response to Duratothemax's assertion that the overwhelming majority of the mil is in no way a socialist, statist bunch of freeloaders happy to be on the government tit.

Do you deny saying this on Pg. 9??? Go look!

Are you now deciding to refine your statements about the government as a whole? Is the Socialist Military now exempt from your comments?

Please, I'd love to know.

You really need to reread the thread. You're getting things out of order, combining and confusing different discussions. But back to THIS discussion.

In this discussion I did not mention the military, because I wasn't talking about the military. For reference here's the comment.

"Originally Posted By Qweevox:

While it's not impossible, it's more difficult if they are dependent on a government check. Something about biting the hand that feeds you, and all that.

Then there are many who have no real marketable skills. Their job or career doesn't really exist outside of government. If it wasn't for the coercion used by government to take money from people to fund their government check, they'd never be able to trade their skills in a voluntary way in a free market.

Nothing is absolute, but getting a government check does seem to have a significant influence on a person's political beliefs. This is clearly demonstrated in this thread and threads like it."

No, now you're just shirking responsibility for what you said, by trying to assert you never said it. You're full of shit. Everyone can go back and read what you said. You clearly included the Mil in your attack on the government, and now you're pretending you never did so. Why? Are you now ashamed that you have insulted the very people that ensure you have the freedom to think as you do?

wow you're good. I yield to your larger cranial cavity.

That was obvious whether or not you continued to ramble on in the thread and dodge your previous statements.

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -- Thucydides

by any measure most of our civilization is anarchistic. most people spend most of their time engaged in professional and personal relationships that are entirely voluntary.. most wealthy is created and controlled by the so-called private sector..

not sure what you mean about if, conjunction, Satan...

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:
Oh, and there doesnt need to be an anarchist mil force really. Is most all thhe people decided to just blow of .gov, and to kill jbts when they came calling, thed run out of jbts real quick., the ruling oligarchy and their enforcers are always, by definition a mminority. A parasite cannot be larger than its host.

But the people,will not revolt till they know they can. And they wont know they can till they do.

But yes people, most of our individual lives and most of our society is in fact anarchistic.

Gov violence does NOT equal order.

This conjunction "if" was created by Satan and designed for the unintelligent masses.

And if you're operating off the premise that most of society is anarchistic, be happy your premise isn't a train and reality isn't a cliff.

by any measure most of our civilization is anarchistic. most people spend most of their time engaged in professional and personal relationships that are entirely voluntary.. most wealthy is created and controlled by the so-called private sector..

not sure what you mean about if, conjunction, Satan...

If that were the case then it'd be represented by the current status of most of the world.

It's not, and hasn't been since the advent of societal living.

Anarchy happens on occasion, briefly, in the narrow window between the fall of the previous power structure and the rise of the next one.

People can and do pursue their best interests in the private sector under the existence of a natural law orientated government. Anarchy is not required for the creation of wealth and in fact has the opposite effect.

If that were the case then it'd be represented by the current status of most of the world.

It's not, and hasn't been since the advent of societal living.

Anarchy happens on occasion, briefly, in the narrow window between the fall of the previous power structure and the rise of the next one.

People can and do pursue their best interests in the private sector under the existence of a natural law orientated government. Anarchy is not required for the creation of wealth and in fact has the opposite effect.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:Oh, and there doesnt need to be an anarchist mil force really. Is most all thhe people decided to just blow of .gov, and to kill jbts when they came calling, thed run out of jbts real quick., the ruling oligarchy and their enforcers are always, by definition a mminority. A parasite cannot be larger than its host.

But the people,will not revolt till they know they can. And they wont know they can till they do.

But yes people, most of our individual lives and most of our society is in fact anarchistic.

Gov violence does NOT equal order.

This conjunction "if" was created by Satan and designed for the unintelligent masses.

And if you're operating off the premise that most of society is anarchistic, be happy your premise isn't a train and reality isn't a cliff.

by any measure most of our civilization is anarchistic. most people spend most of their time engaged in professional and personal relationships that are entirely voluntary.. most wealthy is created and controlled by the so-called private sector..

not sure what you mean about if, conjunction, Satan...

If that were the case then it'd be represented by the current status of most of the world.

It's not, and hasn't been since the advent of societal living.

Anarchy happens on occasion, briefly, in the narrow window between the fall of the previous power structure and the rise of the next one.

People can and do pursue their best interests in the private sector under the existence of a natural law orientated government. Anarchy is not required for the creation of wealth and in fact has the opposite effect.

United States civilization for example is essentially a network of relationships. most of those relationships are voluntary a small amount of those relationships are not voluntary ( for example tax collector and taxpayer). the fact that most of these relationships and most interaction on a day to day basis is voluntary is all that I am saying.

the point of that observation is that most organizations of people, most production and distribution of resources etc occurs without a central planners having their schemes forcibly impose.

United States civilization for example is essentially a network of relationships. most of those relationships are voluntary a small amount of those relationships are not voluntary ( for example tax collector and taxpayer). the fact that most of these relationships and most interaction on a day to day basis is voluntary is all that I am saying.

the point of that observation is that most organizations of people, most production and distribution of resources etc occurs without a central planners having their schemes forcibly impose.

These transactions evolve into relationships because they're not approached from a lawless motivation, but rather a mutually beneficial one.

Anarchistic behavior is really not in anyone's best interest. A smoothly operating economy is most desirable because it's stable.

Stability is what motivates people, and anarchy is anything but.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:

United States civilization for example is essentially a network of relationships. most of those relationships are voluntary a small amount of those relationships are not voluntary ( for example tax collector and taxpayer). the fact that most of these relationships and most interaction on a day to day basis is voluntary is all that I am saying.

the point of that observation is that most organizations of people, most production and distribution of resources etc occurs without a central planners having their schemes forcibly impose.

These transactions evolve into relationships because they're not approached from a lawless motivation, but rather a mutually beneficial one.

Anarchistic behavior is really not in anyone's best interest. A smoothly operating economy is most desirable because it's stable.

Stability is what motivates people, and anarchy is anything but.

WTF is a "lawless motivation?" Capitalism is a subset of voluntarism, as is anarchy...

Anarchy does NOT equal:
lawlessness, selfishness, chaos, violence, thoughtlessness, rudeness, doing whatever one feels at any time, libtards in guy fawks masks throwing rocks through shoppe windows and demanding bigger government to protect them from corporations.

anarchy means literally, "w/o rulers," rulers being people that can and will use force to obtain compliance. It does NOT mean w/o rules (manners, customs, morals etc). Nor does it mean w/o leaders, those with moral authority, charisma, etc.

You grossly misrepresenting the concept, saying that it means its antonym actually. Volunterism is a moral philosophy that says that all interactions should be voluntary/non-violent. A subsection of those interactions are economic in nature and are called free trade/exchange/enterprise or capitalism. Anarchism is the conclusion of that moral reasoning applied to the state, which is inherantly coercive.

When two people trade in the free market/free enterprise, voluntarily, for mutual benefit, w/o fraud theft or violence, that is literally an anarchistic relationship; there is not a ruler and a ruled in the transaction, both are free to negotiate or disengage. The difference b/t an anarchic interaction and an "archic" interaction is the difference b/t making love and rape.

anarchic behavior IS in everyone's best interests. Proof of this is how the free market system has produced more wealth than any economic system that uses violence to impose central planning (communism, fascism, feudalism, roman or chattel style slavery.)

Self interest is what motivates people. People quickly realize that trade is, rather than war, is in their interests b/c it produces wealth rather than just redistributing it, and b/c violence is very costly and risky (unless of course you are, or benefit from, an overwhelming force who can deter resistance).

Government violence is everything wrong w/ our economy. Forcible redistribution of wealth from:
countries we force to use our inflating currency, tax payers to the big banks, tax payers to large farmers, tax payers to welfare slags, future generations yet unborn, younger workers to the old, the healthy to the sick (obama care).
The distortions it creates in demand/price discovery, the booms it creates etc is certainly NOT stability, not for long anyway.

Anarchy really is a dirty word. I can say all the same shit w/o mentioning the word and GD is all about it, but if anarchy is uttered, suddenly people see visions of like mad max or some shit.

Dura, please at least educate youself of what anarchism is. Be against it if you want, but know what it is for chrissakes. Again, that vid on pg 3 i linked defines it well, distinguishes it from authoritarianism, and addresses some of the common practical concerns.

Hitler used gas chambers, anarchist subsist on machetes, starvation and burning tires. Ya'lls fantasy of anarchy will never happen the way you think it will. It never has.

You really should have some vague notion of anarchich though before demonstrating your ignorance. Gas chambers, machetes

whether it has never happened, is probably true. We, so far, have not been an exception to the rest of mammals where the alpha/beta team secure for themselves preferential access to resources in the pack. We just make up words to obfuscate the reality of it.

Everyone owning themselves, being owned by no other, and not fucking with eachother is the goal of any moral man. Though the FFs belived that gov was necessary, they believed it was a necessary EVIL, not just a necessity. Their goal was to be as close to anarchy as possible. That should be ours, at the very least.

I suppose you see yourself as Alpha?

in a wolf pack for example, a pair of males, one strong, the other stronger work together to rule a pack, or to seize control another one. The beta is the enforcer, he walks first in the pack, who allows the alpha, in second position to keep his greater, strength in reserve in case of a extraordinary threat. This happens with pretty much all pack mammals including the human primate. This is a violently enforced hierarchy or government if you will, whose purpose it to ensure survival and reproduction for the genes of the alpha and beta.

Humans added an element to this: the shaman/witch doctor/priest. His job is to mentally deter those not deterred threat of force, particularly when a given alpha grows older and weaker and want to secure his offspring's privileged position. He says that those who dare to strike at the king, or his enforcers, or himself will incur some sort of curse, in this life, or the next, and the farther removed the threatened curse gets, the more grave, hence, eternal damnation.

Only the human species can use ideas to dominate other of its members. I can domesticate an ox, but I cannot make it do work for me with threats of future action. Sure I can whip it to pull a plow, but I can't tell it to pull the plow tomorrow or i'm gonna whip it the next day. Nor can I convince it that if it disobeys me, a man in the sky will see and will be angry. (don't take this to mean that I think all religion is bad and can be reduced to this). I bring this up b/c Josie touched on this false notion that being "law abiding" is inherantly is moral or holy, and this explains how as humans we are ruled not by the strong alpha brute, but the cunning and immoral who convince any enforcers that have a conscience that they are doing the right thing, and the rest of us that we have a duty to obey.

in this, I suppose that I am what ever is below B or C. I am a tax cattle, and my children probably will be too and I'm goddammed mad about it

in a wolf pack for example, a pair of males, one strong, the other stronger work together to rule a pack, or to seize control another one. The beta is the enforcer, he walks first in the pack, who allows the alpha, in second position to keep his greater, strength in reserve in case of a extraordinary threat. This happens with pretty much all pack mammals including the human primate. This is a violently enforced hierarchy or government if you will, whose purpose it to ensure survival and reproduction for the genes of the alpha and beta.

Humans added an element to this: the shaman/witch doctor/priest. His job is to mentally deter those not deterred threat of force, particularly when a given alpha grows older and weaker and want to secure his offspring's privileged position. He says that those who dare to strike at the king, or his enforcers, or himself will incur some sort of curse, in this life, or the next, and the farther removed the threatened curse gets, the more grave, hence, eternal damnation.

Another species can and does dominate each other. But only can use ideas to dominate eachother. I can domesticate a cow, but I make a cow do work for me with threats of future action. Sure I can whip it to pull a plow, but I can't tell it to pull the plow tomorrow or i'm gonna whip it the next day. Nor can I convince it that if it disobeys me, a man in the sky will see and will be angry.

in this, I suppose that I am what ever is below B or C. I am a tax cattle, and my children probably will be too and I'm goddammed mad about it

All I know about Anarchy is what I've learned in streets across the planet experiencing it's joys and benefits. While non aggression pacts I'm sure are the goals, those that obey those pacts have gasoline soaked tires thrown over their heads and are given their last cigars.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By nukldragr:

Originally Posted By right wing nut:

calm down nuckler dragger. you are relly abusing text size bro. No anarchist is going to work for another government, cannot, by definition, share ideology w/ any foreign government like a communist, for example. . I am just making the observation that if the foreign invasion boogie man did come and take over, after the smoke settled, my life would be pretty much the same as it is now: A ruling class and their enforcers taking my money, killing me or putting me in a cage if i don't pay up or follow their arbitrary BS rules, and killing me and getting away scott free if I give them the stink eye rather than act grateful they are checking my papers etc.

as to the pragmatism of the revolution. You remember that line in the patriot where Mel asks whether it is better to have one tyrant 1000 miles away or 1000 1 mile away?

ETA: you clearly know nothing about the non aggression principle, the very foundation of anarchism, if you think that they would be going on shooting sprees & dragging the DMV lady out into the street.

All I know about Anarchy is what I've learned in streets across the planet experiencing it's joys and benefits. While non aggression pacts I'm sure are the goals, those that obey those pacts have gasoline soaked tires thrown over their heads and are given their last cigars.

"non aggression pact"?? No "pact" necessary. Just an understanding: I won't fuck w/ you, but if you attack w/ me I will kill you, mmmmkay.

okay, we are having some equivocation here.

Anarchy could either mean:
-a the political conclusion of the moral philosophy of volunteerism.
-a society that never had or has a failed "state."

In a tribal civilization, there are enforced hierarchies indeed. They aren't exactly trying to live out the non-aggression principle in a free thinking society.

The wilds of some failed/failing latin american state is going to have a power vacuum suddenly filled by opportunists.

Anarchy can only be peaceful if the people have the moral beliefs for it. If not, it will be all war lords etc till one consolidated power enough to be more like a "government." I do NOT think america at large has the moral foundation for it today by any means. It has to be a gradual process, moral development. I think this organic moral development will also occur w/ secessionist movements as people cap authority at lower and lower levels. Partly facilitated by big governments collapsing under their own weight.

Look at the difference b/t wazierastan and the west. Free trade rather than subsistence farming and raiding, freedom of religion rather than honor killings, slavery, dancing boys etc. There is moral progress required. Perhaps before they could ever develop into a free and stateless society both, they would have to go through a period of national identity first?? I see the next project of the west as the shrinking and subdivision of government till hopefully it disappears entirely. But that has to be an organic process that corresponds to the more thorough spread and adoption of the moral idea of non-aggression.

laugh if you want, but you children will be tax cattle too . In fact, their lives are already mortgaged.

The point of discussing animal hierarchy is to concede that government is a natural tendency of humans as animals. The argument is that we, as thinking animals, moral animals, should tend toward volunteerism as both a practical and moral objective rather than being violent and then misusing our intellect to deceive ourselves about the truth of it.

"non aggression pact"?? No "pact" necessary. Just an understanding: I won't fuck w/ you, but if you attack w/ me I will kill you, mmmmkay.

/snip/.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:

Originally Posted By nukldragr:

Originally Posted By right wing nut:

calm down nuckler dragger. you are relly abusing text size bro. No anarchist is going to work for another government, cannot, by definition, share ideology w/ any foreign government like a communist, for example. . I am just making the observation that if the foreign invasion boogie man did come and take over, after the smoke settled, my life would be pretty much the same as it is now: A ruling class and their enforcers taking my money, killing me or putting me in a cage if i don't pay up or follow their arbitrary BS rules, and killing me and getting away scott free if I give them the stink eye rather than act grateful they are checking my papers etc.

as to the pragmatism of the revolution. You remember that line in the patriot where Mel asks whether it is better to have one tyrant 1000 miles away or 1000 1 mile away?

ETA: you clearly know nothing about the non aggression principle, the very foundation of anarchism, if you think that they would be going on shooting sprees & dragging the DMV lady out into the street.

All I know about Anarchy is what I've learned in streets across the planet experiencing it's joys and benefits. While non aggression pacts I'm sure are the goals, those that obey those pacts have gasoline soaked tires thrown over their heads and are given their last cigars.

"non aggression pact"?? No "pact" necessary. Just an understanding: I won't fuck w/ you, but if you attack w/ me I will kill you, mmmmkay.

/snip/.

That works one on one in a dusty street in the old west....

In real life the bad guys work together forming their own "government" then you die after watching your daughters and sons get gangraped

You can defeat the bad guys by joining forces with those who share your goals. Now to lessen your chance of getting beat you would have to put someone in "command" for the fight....
but that would be to statist wouldn't it?

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:
Give it a rest cinncinatus. Next thing you know youll be doing a larry craig style press statement saying:
"im not a statist, ive never been astatist, ill never be a statist."

listen, I get your point, it is a criticism of the human species that to get most men to listen to something, the messenger has to have tits. but that simply is how things are and you have to deal with people as they are to get through to them. Am I frustruated that no one watchs vids I post of "tubby" bc he is a mustachioed ginger. Sure, but im happy at leasr that sugar britches can get a little traction.

You are adding nothing of value to the conversation here. Please go start another thread about how whoever is stupid. Thx

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:
Anarchy does NOT equal:
lawlessness, selfishness, chaos, violence, thoughtlessness, rudeness, doing whatever one feels at any time, libtards in guy fawks masks throwing rocks through shoppe windows and demanding bigger government to protect them from corporations.

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By rightwingnut:
Anarchy does NOT equal:
lawlessness, selfishness, chaos, violence, thoughtlessness, rudeness, doing whatever one feels at any time, libtards in guy fawks masks throwing rocks through shoppe windows and demanding bigger government to protect them from corporations.

Sadly, it means ALL of those things to different people. That's kind of the problem we're having. Regardless of what the dictionary definition is, anarchy just doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. Maybe we need a new word that's a little more unencumbered by misunderstanding?

Originally Posted By NUCdt04:

Originally Posted By popsickles:
What in the unholy fuck is going on in here.

it started about some sorta hot chick making some videos

now it's about ARFCOM's fucked up views on politics

that's just from reading pages 1 and 10.......

anyone
flushed out who she is? I'm putting money on she's in my neck of the
woods and I'd like to sit down over some beers and talk more

She's
a self-styled anarchist, and a follower of Adam Kokesh, who, along with
others of his tribe, are starting a new civil disobedience movement
with her as its spokesperson. Apparently, they've cued to the idea that
a cute girl makes a better spokesperson than a shady looking guy with
questionable contacts.

The shitstorm here has evolved from the
term "anarchist" and what it means in relation to her message, which
seems to be largely to "ignore" unconstitutional laws and for LEO to
refuse to follow unconstitutional orders lest they be marked as JBTs and
dealt with accordingly. Also, the difference between one man's anarchy and another's.